Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:40:57 +0100 | From | David Weinehall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix |
| |
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:03:42AM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
[snip]
> Of course ordering rules must be obeyed, and side effects cannot be moved > across sequence points. Thus if the two volatile loads are in separate > instructions, as in:
[snip]
Sorry, if I'm rude, but is this discussion really going anywhere, and is it really necessary to have on lkml?! The signal/noise-ratio is low enough as it is.
Instead of arguing about possible interpretations of the C-standard, why not do some real C-programming instead...
Regards: David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |